January 2024 marks the start of the second phase of our ‘Fragmentation of Research’ Campaign with a focus on the sub-theme, ‘siloed knowledge’. We will explore the fragmentation of research from the viewpoint of those areas of research where a lack of integration reveals instances where research findings remain isolated, limiting their broader applicability across the research ecosystem.  We will focus on a number of salient areas which have particular relevance for Digital Science.  For example, Figshare’s recently published eighth State of Open Data 2023 Report offering a snapshot of open research trends year on year, calls attention to, amongst other issues, researchers making their data publicly available and where subject differences reveal that sharing data is not the norm for all researchers – remaining siloed either according to the discipline or the format.

Today’s modern and connected world still retains many aspects of fragmentation across the research lifecycle and amongst the different stakeholder groups from academia to research organisations, research funders, governments and business, each are delicately networked and none are immune to the effects of fragmentation. Looking at the flow of information in the different research environments and the approaches taken to break down silos, thereby improving research outcomes, can differ markedly.  Take, for example, the different platforms used to handle different parts of the research lifecycle, in many cases they do not ‘talk’ to each other, operating in a siloed manner.  An unintended consequence of this is the duplication of effort that ensues

In academia, siloed knowledge is a natural outcome of being expert in a subject area attached to a discipline, and where it is the norm to communicate with others who hold similar views and which often leads to a research collaboration. In this way, and for this reason, academics are often placed in silos.  For example, economists collaborate with other economists, engineers collaborate with other engineers and so on, and they are only unified through interdisciplinary approaches, bringing disparate disciplines together to work towards a common goal of bringing the different disciplines together.  Individual academics staying in their discipline throughout their career or those that change discipline frequently (foxes and hedgehogs, respectively) have an effect on collaborative patterns and interdisciplinarity.

We will also look at the fragmented nature of research knowledge and the gaps that form as a result of silos, as well as the promotion of cross-disciplinary collaboration providing useful insights in how to define research knowledge gaps and how they can be filled. From a methodological perspective we might see gaps in the availability of data, code or full research results to enable the replicability of a research project, or in the declaration of conflicts of interest – all of which fall under the banner of research integrity.

Siloed knowledge will be explored as an aspect of Artificial Intelligence, which we might consider to be one of the most pressing knowledge issues today.  Asking questions such as whether AI can overcome siloed knowledge or whether it does in fact create silos or indeed cement existing silos, and how and if siloed knowledge correlates and interacts with AI. With the advent of chatbots, Large Language Models (LLMs) and supporting tools (writing, analysing, and coding, to name but a few) we will investigate the state of research knowledge underpinning AI and put a lens on potential future areas of diversified knowledge and its use in day-to-day technologies (and use in academic research life cycle).

The post Fragmentation: The Divided Research World – Part Two, Siloed Knowledge appeared first on Digital Science.

“We are not yet seeing large-scale fragmentation, but there are initial signs,” said World Trade Organization chief Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. This trend is, firstly, dangerous and, secondly, could ultimately prove to be “very costly”. “Let’s rethink globalization.” WTO chief warns of “dangerous” fragmentation of world trade.

Source: Der Spiegel

A brief investigative commentary

Reshoring, also known as ‘onshoring’, involves the returning of production and manufacturing of goods to the company’s original country. It can help strengthen an economy by creating manufacturing jobs and reducing unemployment.^[1]

Offshoring, on the other hand, can be framed as the relocation of value chain activities from a firm’s country of origin to foreign locations as outsourcing and investing, and has often been associated with strategies pursuing cost savings, and increased revenues.^[2] It is the opposite of reshoring where companies bring production and manufacturing back to the country in which it was first established.^[3]

In today’s uncertain world, reshoring is often depicted as the successor to offshoring.  However, recently, a new term has emerged – ‘friendshoring’ which refers to the rerouting of supply chains to countries perceived as politically and economically safe or low-risk, to avoid disruption to the flow of business.^[4]

As countries around the world, especially in Asia, continue to develop, labor costs are increasing and shipping costs are becoming prohibitive. For some businesses, the cost difference between operating onshore or offshore is negligible, and thus the gap is growing smaller. However, one of the main disadvantages of offshoring reverting to reshoring is the huge costs involved in moving manufacturing operations from one country to another.

Moreover, considering the instability of international trade – the geopolitical situation has changed dramatically over the past decade, with China showing signs of taking a leading role in trading internationally. Meanwhile, with the US taking a more cautious position and other changes that have happened in global trade relations (such as Brexit), having overseas operations represents a much higher risk today.^[5]

In the UK, following Brexit and Covid-19, the focus of reshoring is moving back to its own shores in attempts to strengthen its manufacturing resilience and to ensure its supply chains in a fragmented world.^[6]

“…the number of research publications associated with offshoring vastly outweighs that of reshoring. However, what is of more interest is looking at trends over time.”

The empirical evidence on reshoring in the last decade highlights that reshoring processes are on the rise, with larger firms and medium to high-tech industries exhibiting the greatest reshoring propensity.^[7]

Using data in Dimensions, we take a brief look to see what trends are evident. Is reshoring (fragmentation) on the rise at the expense of offshoring (globalization)? Globalization is used here as a proxy for offshoring and fragmentation is used as a proxy for reshoring.

We created two simple keyword searches in Dimensions, the first, ‘reshoring’ and the second, ‘offshoring’. The data produced by Dimensions reveals that overall the number of research publications associated with offshoring vastly outweighs that of reshoring. However, what is of more interest is looking at trends over time.

Figure 1 demonstrates that in the last 10 years the trend in research associated with reshoring has been mostly upward, whereas for research associated with offshoring there is evidence that research associated with offshoring is marked by a sizable downturn from 2012 and has not recovered.

Figure 1 below outlines trends over time and where we see that offshoring, depicted by the darker blue line, peaks in 2012 and then declines rapidly, and does not recover in terms of numbers of published papers. For ‘reshoring’ we see the opposite trend – virtually no research published until 2012 followed by a continuous upward trend. These observations are in line with what we might see as a paradigm shift in manufacturing from global to fragmented.

Similarly, depicted below, we find equivalent trends for policy documents (albeit with smaller numbers – see Figure 2) – policy documents associated with ‘reshoring’ not starting to be documented until 2019 and continuing to rise, whereas for policy documents related to ‘offshoring’ the trend started much earlier, in 2014, showing a much more checkered increase until 2013 where we see it decreasing, and dwindling to zero in 2022.

“…decisions to reshore are becoming increasingly popular in both Europe and the US, with businesses reversing prior decisions to offshore.”

Conclusion

We can make a number of conjectures from this simple analysis. First, that there is indeed a shift from globalization towards fragmentation from the perspective of what are known as ‘value chain activities’, particularly production in manufacturing.^[8]

Second, although, as the WTO chief states, we are not yet seeing large-scale fragmentation, the signs are there and decisions to reshore are becoming increasingly popular in both Europe and the US, with businesses reversing prior decisions to offshore.^[9]

A further point – following the simple analysis carried out in this piece – is that research publications outlined related to offshoring start to increase rapidly from 2003, whereas for the research relating to ‘reshoring’ the research does not start to increase until ten years later in 2013. This bolsters the empirical evidence that globalization (offshoring, or moving production to foreign locations) is perhaps giving way to fragmentation (reshoring, or localization of production closer to home).

References

^[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21681376.2023.2199054

^[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296323003636?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=81703bfd584f4887#b0810

^[3] https://www.xometry.com/resources/procurement/what-is-reshoring/

^[4] https://www.weforum.org/

^[5] https://www.xometry.com/resources/procurement/what-is-reshoring/

^[6] https://www.dudleyindustries.com/news/benefits-of-reshoring-manufacturing-to-the-uk

^[7] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/653626/EXPO_STU(2021)653626_EN.pdf

^[8] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296323003636?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=81703bfd584f4887#b0810

^[9] https://reshoring.eurofound.europa.eu/

The post In the spotlight: Reshoring vs offshoring in a geopolitically uncertain and fragmented world appeared first on Digital Science.

“It may take a militarily powerful nation to establish a language, but it takes an economically powerful one to maintain and expand it.”

David Crystal.^[1]

A short commentary

In this short opinion piece we look at English as the universal form of communication in science, in fact, the language of both science and technology.

Although many countries still publish journals in their native tongue, English is currently still the ‘best’ way to share research findings with scientists in other parts of the world.^[2] However, from a historical perspective, this has not always been the case. Egyptian philosophers and stargazers told stories in hieroglyphs. Aristotle and Plato wrote books in Greek, which were then translated into Arabic by their followers. Then came the Romans, who wrote in Latin. It was not until the 20th century that English started to dominate.^[3]

English as today’s global ‘lingua franca,’ is the language most widely spoken throughout the world even though the vast majority of English speakers are not ‘native’ speakers of the language. Of approximately 1.5 billion people who speak English, less than 400 million use it as a first language which means that over 1 billion speak it as a second language.

With today’s technological advances, English as the global language of science and innovation could change by reducing the need to learn English as a language for international communication. AI language tools are becoming increasingly sophisticated and AI-powered translation could potentially create more fair access to science.^[4] Moreover, the rise of China’s research productivity and published research output could have a big impact on how we communicate science.^[5] The bias, if it can be called a bias, towards the use of English in the current global scientific landscape, however, can lead to barriers for those who are non-native English speakers and also to important research study outcomes being overlooked because they are not written in English.

“With today’s technological advances, English as the global language of science and innovation could change”

The consequences of overlooking non-English science may be more serious than just revealing a lack of access to information written in languages other than English. For example, in a study published in PLOS^[6], it was identified that important papers reporting the infection of pigs with avian influenza viruses in China were initially going unnoticed by international communities, including the World Health Organization and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. This was because they were published in Chinese-language journals^[7]. Likewise, in one of the non-English scientific papers it was reported that “urgent attention should be paid to the pandemic preparedness of these two subtypes of influenza”^[8]. It took 14 years for this finding to be picked up and reported on in the English language.

In a 2021 study, Plos Biology screened 419,679 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages in the field of biodiversity and found that non-English-language studies can expand the geographical coverage of English-language evidence by 12% to 25%, especially in biodiverse regions. As with the study in the previous paragraph, the authors of this study urge wider disciplines to reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges.^[9]

Today the populations of native speakers of other languages are all growing faster than the population of native English speakers. About three times more people are native Chinese speakers as are native English speakers. Languages such as Hindi-Urdu, Arabic, Spanish, to name a few, are about the same as those whose native language is English, all of which are growing faster than native English speakers.

Many scientific papers go unnoticed because of the linguistic gap between the global north and the south. English has become the lingua franca of science to ease collaboration but has it really managed to do so? In fact the dominance of the English language risks excluding some of the global south countries.

Digital Science, as the creator of the world’s largest linked database for research information, Dimensions, is able to search the data it holds to find the language in which research publications are written. This is done using an algorithm to detect the language of publications.^[10] The total number of research publications currently stored in Dimensions is 139,644,299 and the table below highlights the probable numbers and percentages of publications in the top six languages of publication along with the number and percentage of publications where no language is detected. The total number of research publication languages in Dimensions is 148, ranging from a language with one publication to the highest numbers of publications set out in Table 1 below.

We also looked at trends over time (2001-2022) for the the top ten non-English language publications sourced from Dimensions (see Figure 1 below).

The top 10 non-English language publications and the percentage overall, show that a number of the top languages in the 2000s (in particular, French, German, Chinese, and Japanese) have waned in the 2010s; whereas others (Russian, Spanish, Portuguese, and especially Arabic, Turkish, and Indonesian) have increased significantly.  

In terms of non-English language research coverage in Dimensions (at least for the sum of the top ten 10 other languages), there has been a growth within the publications corpus from  circa 6% in 2001 to greater than 9% in 2022. We might conclude here that there is either an effect of more non-English research being indexed by Dimensions or that there are beginning to be signs of researchers publishing in their own language when it is other than English.

“Perhaps it is time for the scientific world to acknowledge and embrace work published in all languages to help diversify science thereby enriching research globally.”

Conclusion

As we outlined, the language gap between the Global North and Global South is likely to have excluded much of the research in the lower income countries. As long as English remains the language for scientific communication, many people of other cultural backgrounds will continue to find it increasingly difficult to participate in the scientific process and benefit from its outcomes.^[11] With regard to patterns of non-English publishing over time, we cannot rule out that the increases that we see are not a product of Dimensions amassing more non-English research output, but, at the same time it could be that publication patterns have made shifts to digital and/or open access publications that have affected what is included in the Dimensions database. 

Perhaps it is time for the scientific world to acknowledge and embrace work published in all languages to help diversify science thereby enriching research globally.

Acknowledgement

Thanks to Alex Wade, VP Data Products, Digital Science, for providing time trends data and graph.

References

^[1] https://culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/pdf/research/books/nation_branding/English_As_A_Global_Language_-_David_Crystal.pdf

^[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00899-y

^[3] https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/manuscript-preparation/why-is-english-the-main-language-of-science/

^[4] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01679-6

^[5] https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/manuscript-preparation/why-is-english-the-main-language-of-science/

^[6] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7094971/pdf/41586_2004_Article_BF430955a.pdf

^[7] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7094971/

^[8] https://europepmc.org/article/cba/580966

^[9] https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296

^[10] Algorithm available on request.

^[11] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00031/full

The post In the spotlight: English as the lingua franca in science appeared first on Digital Science.

“At this critical juncture, midway to 2030, the evidence makes clear that incremental and fragmented change is insufficient to achieve all 17 SDGs in the remaining seven years, or even by 2050.”

Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary General, 2023

A short commentary

2023 marks the halfway point between 2015 (the entry point of the Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), and 2030 (the end point of the SDGs).^[1] As it stands currently, the world is off track to achieving the SDGs^[2] and action is necessary to accelerate their implementation.

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals^[3] remain an increasingly important platform, and are the best roadmap that we have currently for achieving global sustainable development. To effectively realise what is known as the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development, there needs to be evidence of “a shared sense of common purpose”. However, progress on achieving the 2030 Agenda has been severely disrupted due to multiple world crises. Thus a joint effort utilising multi-stakeholder partnerships to help to achieve the SDGs is paramount at this halfway point.

Research looking at the fragmentation of SDGs reveals some interesting insights from a number of perspectives. For example, a recent study has found that at this halfway point, silos are strengthening around the 17 SDGs and their three dimensions (social, economic and environmental) producing a fragmented state.^[4] The study, carried out by researchers at the University of Utrecht, looked at the network of international organisations assessing how they had either come together or diverged since the SDGs came into effect in 2016. The research found that overall fragmentation had not decreased in the network since SDG implementation, but did find that international organisations with a focus on the three dimensions of SDG policies displayed different tendencies. For example, social international organisations are least likely to cooperate with others outside the social dimension and are hence most siloed. Environmental international organisations, conversely, are most inclined to cooperate with others outside their dimension, however, the study found that this has diminished over time.^[5]

In a report by the United Nations Development Programme, according to the IMF, global financial fragmentation caused by geopolitical tensions has increased economic fragility.  This has resulted in rising socio-economic inequality contributing to reduced global trade and social tensions in both developed and developing countries, threatening progress on the SDGs.^[6]

The governance in global sustainability is important for bringing together the 191 SDG member states and international organisations that are tasked with working towards realising the Goals. Currently though, this governance is notable in its distinct clusters of international organisations working in a siloed fashion thereby leading to a fragmented system. SDG17 – Partnership for the Goals – emphasises the global partnership that is necessary for achieving all of the SDGs and strengthening inter-organisational coordination and cooperation and is recognised as an important challenge in global sustainability governance. However, geopolitical tensions have made it more difficult to achieve this and cooperation and coordination are necessary now more than ever to speed up the implementation of the SDGs.

Advancing and achieving the SDGs in a world with increased complexity and fragmentation is not an easy task. A complex network of interconnections exist across the SDGs and show how actions directed towards one SDG can influence others. For example, food production (SDGs 1 and 2) is increasingly threatened by air pollution (SDG13), which affects soil quality (SDG15) and crop yields (SDG2). The 2023 Global Sustainability report highlights that an interconnected and systemic approach will be key and shows new evidence that understanding the interconnections between individual goals (as we see above) will be essential. The intertwinings and interdependencies that exist should mean that they cannot fragment. However, this is not the case according to research highlighted above, nor is it for research looking at fragmentation as an enduring feature of the SDGs and the global landscape.

The viewpoint we have taken for this short piece emphasises geopolitical tensions and international organisations/governance as two themes by which to briefly take a look at the narrative in this area. One of the central premises is that the SDGs by their very nature are interwoven and connected and so there should be no room for fragmentation, but what we see is that individually and collectively (by their three dimensions) SDG fragmentation has emerged in a number of different ways.

References

^[1] https://www.un.org/en/conferences/SDGSummit2023

^[2] https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2023/09

^[3] https://sdgs.un.org/goals

^[4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378022001054#b0610

^[5] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378022001054

^[6] https://www.undp.org/publications/fragmentation-integration-embedding-social-issues-sustainable-finance-0#:~:text=The%20paper%20From%20Fragmentation%20to,of%20a%20market%2Dbased%20economy

The post In the spotlight: Have the SDGs failed to reduce fragmentation in global sustainability? appeared first on Digital Science.

“Nearly two billion people globally still lack access to essential medicines and vaccines that could prevent and treat diseases, relieve suffering, improve quality of life and prevent deaths”.

GlaxoSmithKline.^[1]

Summary

In this blog we present findings from a bibliometric evaluation of scientific publications that include a contribution from the top ten pharmaceutical companies in the Global North and Global South, which have been indexed in Digital Science’s Dimensions database in the past five years (2018 to 2022). The study maps aspects of the landscape in this area exploring differences in pharmaceutical research practices from different perspectives including funding and collaboration, pharmaceutical research and its association with the SDGs, the impact of the cost of medicines developed by pharma and their accessibility in distinct geographic regions. The results show significant gaps between the two global areas, but also some ways where these gaps are now closing.

Contents

• Introduction
  • The new geography of the pharmaceutical industry
  • The pharmaceutical industry’s commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• Methodology
• Analysis
  • Global North and Global South
  • Pharmaceutical funding and collaboration with ‘access to medicine’ research publications
  • Pharma funding and collaboration associated with the UN Sustainable Development Goals
  • Funding Sources-Pharmaceutical Partnerships
• Conclusion
• References

Introduction

Access to essential medicines is a serious global concern, regardless of the income level of a country. Medicines are not affordable for those who need them in many low- and middle-income countries (the Global South), and many new medicines are too expensive even for the health systems of middle- and high-income countries (the Global North)^[2].

“An estimated two billion people worldwide still lack access to essential medicines and vaccines.”

World Health Organization (WHO) report.^[3]

Staggeringly, an estimated two billion people worldwide still lack access to essential medicines and vaccines that could prevent and treat diseases, relieve suffering, improve quality of life and reduce deaths,^[3] and the majority of these people are living in global south countries. This is a clear example of fragmentation in our society – a disconnect between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’, where science and medicine could save lives but are unable to overcome the barriers in their way.

Pharmaceutical companies are recognised as being uniquely positioned to remedy this and improve people’s lives by producing innovative and affordable medicines^[4]. However, their products have generally been developed to target more lucrative markets and, as a result, are often poorly matched with the needs of global south countries.

“Achieving equitable access to medicines is a key component in the UN’s Sustainable Development Agenda.”

Dr Briony Fane, Digital Science

Achieving equitable access to medicines is a key component in the UN’s Sustainable Development Agenda. In particular, one of the targets of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 3 (SDG3) – ‘Good Health and wellbeing’ – is to achieve Universal Health Coverage (UHC) and is a critical driver to realising health equity. Equitable access and resilient health systems are the basis for UHC, by enabling availability, affordability, and acceptability to ensure that people can get the right medicines of the right quality at the right price and at the right place^[5].

Since 2006 the UN’s Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) has provided support and assistance to advance local pharmaceutical production in developing countries where its support contributes effectively to strengthening the health security of the global south countries and as a follow on to attaining SDG3, addressing the need for “access to safe, effective, quality, and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all”^[6]. However, there remain barriers for many people in the world who have difficulty accessing the healthcare they need for multiple reasons, including:

“While countries in the Global South have obtained benefits from pharmaceuticals originally developed for high income country markets, little research has been conducted on diseases that primarily affect these countries, such as malaria or tuberculosis.”

From “Access to Essential Drugs in Poor Countries: A Lost Battle?”^[8]

Even for diseases that affect both the Global North and the Global South alike, research often focuses on products that are best suited for use in the Global North. For example, a lot of pharmaceutical research has been conducted on complex AIDS drugs that are more useful in global north countries, but too expensive and difficult to deliver to much of the population in global south countries.^[9] The lower income countries take the bulk of the global disease burden, yet essential healthcare products are often unaffordable or unavailable to them.

Achieving greater access for the global south countries who have less access to the most essential of medicines requires pharmaceutical companies to give them a place in their business operations. The 2022 ‘Access to Medicine Index’^[10] evaluates and compares 20 of the world’s leading research-based pharmaceutical companies according to their efforts to improve access to medicine. Data analysed for the 2022 Index found that more companies had stepped up their access efforts – including some companies that were previously less likely to take action.^[11] The data relates to 83 diseases, conditions and pathogens that disproportionately impact people living in the 108 global south countries in scope of the Index, where better access to medicine is most urgently needed. Most recently, Johnston & Johnston has agreed to allow generic versions of the drug bedaquiline in dozens (96) of lower income countries to be made available. It is implementing this by providing the Global Drug Facility (GDF)^[12] with licences enabling the organisation to procure and supply generic forms of the drug countries the organisation supplies.^[13]

The ability to contribute to health equity and, more specifically, facilitate access-to-medicine, has increasingly become a priority for the pharmaceutical industry. However, while steps are being taken to improve access to their products in the global south, many plans and strategies still overlook the poorest countries.

The new geography of the pharmaceutical industry

“The geographic concentration of the pharmaceutical industry currently sits in those countries with the fastest growing economies.”

Dr Briony Fane, Digital Science

The geographic concentration of the pharmaceutical industry currently sits in those countries with the fastest growing economies. This concentration is gradually starting to shift and more and more we are seeing that pharmaceutical production in developing countries is increasing. For instance, India is now a more prominent and developing player in the global pharmaceutical industry and their domestic pharmaceutical market’s growth outpaced that of the overall economy by 2-3% a year^[14]. According to China Briefing, the Chinese pharmaceutical market has grown in the past few years, with a 200% increase in market capitalisation between 2016 and 2020.^[15] Thus, although the US pharmaceutical industry still dominates the global market, accounting for roughly 50% of global pharmaceutical sales revenue, we are seeing shifting patterns in the geography of the pharmaceutical industry.

The research-based pharmaceutical industry is also entering a new era in medicines development^[16] and there is fast growth in the market and research environment in emerging economies such as Brazil, China and India, leading to a gradual migration of economic and research activities from Europe to these markets^[17]. That said, of the 40 vaccine manufacturers in 14 nations that are part of The Developing Countries Vaccine Manufacturers Network, currently just one is African: the Biovac Institute based in Cape Town, South Africa, which delivers over 25 million doses of vaccines each year for illnesses such as measles, polio and tuberculosis.^[18]

Consequently there is still a heavy reliance on external sources and the export of medicines to African nations. However, within the next two decades, the African Union member states are aiming for 60% of Africa’s routinely used vaccines to be manufactured on the continent.^[19]  With roughly half the population of Africa lacking regular access to the most essential medicines, according to the WHO,^[20] attempts to reduce this has seen a growing number of healthcare practitioners beginning to build the pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity on the African continent.

Crossing the continents, Bangladesh’s pharmaceutical industry is unique in the Global South. Driven by active government policies, output has grown a thousand times since 1982, to US$2 billion (around 1% of gross domestic product), making it the biggest white collar employer in the country. The industry supplies pharmaceuticals to almost the entire domestic market and more than 100 other countries including the United States.^[21]

The pharmaceutical industry’s commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The value of translating scientific evidence into action in support of the SDGs and their attainment is of paramount importance. The pharmaceutical industry’s participation in accelerating achievement of the SDGs requires that its roadmap for research and development includes demonstrating its ability to tackle diseases in both global south and global north countries. 

The need to have access to safe and effective essential medicines is so important that it has been designated a basic human right by the World Health Organization.^[22] This importance has been given further weight by its inclusion in the UN’s Sustainable Development Agenda.

Access to medicine is essential for ending epidemics and reducing the mortality in non-communicable diseases and is one of the targets of Sustainable Development Goal 3 – Good Health and well-being (SDG3.4). Of course, living healthy lives is what most people would expect, or at the very least hope for, in the 21st century. However, for millions, this remains an aspiration. The mission of SDG3 is to change this and ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for people of all ages, and the pharmaceutical industry is making inroads in its contribution to SDG3 and beyond.

For example, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) expresses a long-term commitment to improving access to health care across the world. Since 2010, it has capped the prices of patented medicines and vaccines in the “least developed countries” at 25% of those in the EU5 (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK) as long as manufacturing costs are covered^[23]. 

We also examine how the UN SDGs influence the pharmaceutical industry to do more good than changing and saving lives. So although the pharmaceutical industry’s primary impact is in SDG3, other Goals such as SDG12 Responsible Consumption and Production and SDG6 Clean Water and Sanitation are also influential.

“A number of leading pharmaceutical companies now demonstrate ‘responsible production’ by, for example, reducing animal testing and hazardous chemical use (Bayer), recycling water in the manufacturing process (GSK), or education on vaccination for the community (Pfizer)…”

Dr Briony Fane, Digital Science

For example, a number of leading pharmaceutical companies now demonstrate ‘responsible production’ by, for example, reducing animal testing and hazardous chemical use (Bayer), recycling water in the manufacturing process (GSK), or education on vaccination for the community (Pfizer), along with wastewater management, water recycling, and the use of green chemistry aimed to address environmental issues. The above examples focus on targets set out in SDG12 and SDG6.

Methodology

We extracted the top ten pharmaceutical companies by income using GRID IDs (parent GRID), whilst extracting the (child GRID) ID for each company (the top pharmaceutical companies operate worldwide and have subsidiaries across the globe) and this allowed us to split them into those operating in global north countries and those operating in global south countries depending on operation bases, ie, where top ten pharmaceutical companies based in the Global North have operations carrying out pharmaceutical research and development in the Global South. Dimensions allows us to do this using Google Big Query (GBQ) bringing together World Bank data for the Global North and Global South distinction, and the research output from Dimensions, to perform the analyses.  

Next, a simple boolean search string was created: “access medicine”~3 and, along with our search string of top ten pharmaceutical companies, Dimensions retrieved the relevant research outputs for pharmaceutical companies in global north and in global south countries.

Using the set of search results we filtered the research output by Global South (low and lower-middle income countries) and Global North (high and upper-middle income countries).

Analysis

Global North and Global South

In this section we analysed the relevant research that involves the top ten pharmaceutical companies and their contribution to research on ‘access to medicine’ in the Global North and in the Global South.

To get an initial sense of the data, we first analysed ‘access to medicine’ research publications featuring top ten pharmaceutical companies, using Dimensions. This enabled us to ascertain the geographical distribution of the pharmaceutical companies’ participation in this domain (see Figure 1) in global north and global south countries.

Figure 1 details the total volume of research publications associated with ‘access to medicine’ research by country income level..  Of the total volume (3,165 publications), 109 (3.4%) include a contribution from the pharmaceutical industry. 1,473 publications from the dataset did not have the required data to determine country-income group (46%).

Pharmaceutical funding and collaboration with ‘access to medicine’ research publications

Figure 2 outlines the volume of papers across global north and global south countries over time.  We note that a mixed pattern emerges. We also note that numbers are small and might expect this for two reasons.  Firstly, access to medicine research is a particularly niche area of research, and secondly, historically, it has not been common for the pharmaceutical industry to collaborate on academic research. But this is changing with links between academia and the pharmaceutical industry increasing both as funding partners or as collaborators, or both.^[24] The data here would confirm this.  What is apparent is that pharmaceutical companies predominantly collaborate with researchers and fund more research in the high income countries of the Global North. Although there is evidence of pharmaceutical companies funding  and collaborating with research in the global south, it is to a much lesser extent. Figure 3 reveals that collaboration in conjunction with funding by pharma for research associated with ‘access to medicine’ is evident in 2022 for the first time. It would be interesting to see whether this is the starting point for the pharmaceutical industry’s engagement and collaboration with academic researchers in the Global South going forward.

The top ten pharmaceutical industry’s contribution to ‘access to medicine’ relevant research in Global North and Global South countries is displayed in Figure 3 above detailing the extent to which collaboration and funding in this area is focused in the two regions over an eight year period.  Immediately apparent is the stronger commitment to the higher income countries, where, in particular, the pharmaceutical industry’s collaborations with academic research is most pronounced. Funding and/or collaborating with research in the Global South shows data only across three years.

Pharma funding and collaboration associated with the UN Sustainable Development Goals

Figures 4a and 4b above assess the volume of research outputs that are associated with the UN’s SDGs, either funded or in collaboration with, or both, the pharmaceutical industry. Unsurprisingly, the research focus is predominantly with SDG3 – Good health and well-being, however the data would suggest that there are potentially starting to be signs of their focus extending to SDG12 Responsible Production and Consumption (eg, supply chains) and SDG6 Clean Water and Sanitation (eg, management of wastewater). With reference to SDG6, advances in wastewater treatment processes are being made in the industry to prevent the discharge of harmful substances into water resources and the environment. In fact  AstraZeneca has made an 18.7% reduction in water use since 2015 and 100% reduction of active pharmaceutical ingredients discharges from AstraZeneca sites. 92% of discharges from direct suppliers were in compliance with SDG6 target 6.3.^[25] With respect to SDG12 again, AstraZeneca averted 2,129 tonnes of waste in 2022 alone by selling it as a by-product.

The geographical distribution of the top ten pharmaceutical industry’s participation in research associated with ‘access to medicine’ research was examined using a collaborative network visualisation tool (see Figure 5 above), VOSviewer. The tool allows us to see, in this instance, countries participating in research focused on ‘access to medicine’, the collaborative networks between those countries, and where pharmaceutical companies concentrate their collaborations. Understanding geographic patterns can also help to identify potential gaps and highlight areas where more collaborative effort might be valuable. It can also indicate regions where the pharmaceutical industry is more proactive in supporting research on access to medicines.

Funding Sources-Pharmaceutical Partnerships

We present data in Figure 6 to provide an understanding of the financial and/or collaborative support from the pharmaceutical industry behind research focused on ‘access to medicine’ in different sectors. Analysis of the dataset using Dimensions, allowed us to determine the proportion of research funded by pharmaceutical companies, alongside other sources, including government agencies, foundations, and nonprofit organisations. The analysis provides an indication (despite small numbers^[26]) of the extent of the pharmaceutical industry’s financial commitment to ‘access to medicine’ research in the Global North and Global South, and helps to evaluate the diversity of pharmaceutical funding of research in this area.

Conclusion

Exploring a niche area of research as we have done here with our focus on ‘access to medicine’, means that the data retrieved will be small in number, and made smaller by the introduction of a filter which is possible using Dimensions which in this case is the top ten pharmaceutical companies. Lower numbers in an analysis naturally brings with it a number of caveats, and one in particular, the robustness of the data and subsequent outcomes.

Despite this, it is still worthwhile and beneficial to explore the research from this perspective and has provided some useful insights. Insights such as the industries that the pharmaceutical industry supports in this niche area and where we see that it is not just in healthcare but also in education, government, not for profits, etc that science is funded for the development of new pharmaceutical products aimed at transforming lives.

“…it is not just in healthcare but also in education, government, not for profits, etc that science is funded for the development of new pharmaceutical products aimed at transforming lives.”

Dr Briony Fane, Digital Science

Further, the geography of the pharmaceutical industry’s participation in this area of research indicates perhaps the start of a growing commitment to its involvement in addressing the access to medicine in all areas in the world and evidence of collaboration across the Global North and Global South, however small, shows a level of responsibility being taken by the industry.

Finally, on a general note, a survey by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry in 2022 found that ‘industry-academic links were at an all time high and identified several trends pointing to the continued support of the pharmaceutical industry for students training and research all across the UK and worldwide’.^[27]

“The geography of the pharmaceutical industry’s participation in this area of research indicates perhaps the start of a growing commitment to its involvement in addressing the access to medicine in all areas in the world and evidence of collaboration across the Global North and Global South, however small, shows a level of responsibility being taken by the industry.”

Dr Briony Fane, Digital Science

References

^[1] https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/responsibility/global-health-and-health-security/improving-access-to-healthcare/

^[2] Wirtz VJ, Hogerzeil HV, Gray AL, Bigdeli M, de Joncheere CP, Ewen MA et al. Essential medicines for universal health coverage. Lancet. 2017;389(10067):403–76

^[3] https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/essential-medicines/fair-price/chapter-medicines.pdf?sfvrsn=adcffc8f_4&download=true

^[4] https://unglobalcompact.org/library/1011

^[5] https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/responsibility/global-health-and-health-security/improving-access-to-healthcare/

^[6] https://www.unido.org/our-focus-advancing-economic-competitiveness-investing-technology-and-innovation-competitiveness-business-environment-and-upgrading/pharmaceutical-production-developing-countries

^[7] https://www.astellas.com/en/sustainability/access-to-medicines

^[8] Pecoul, Bernard et al. 1999. “Access to Essential Drugs in Poor Countries: A Lost Battle?” Journal of the American Medical Association. January 27, 281:4, pp. 361–67

^[9] http://www2.hawaii.edu/~noy/362texts/pharma.pdf

^[10] https://accesstomedicinefoundation.org/medialibrary/2022_access-to-medicine-index-1669982470.pdf

^[11] https://accesstomedicinefoundation.org/medialibrary/2022_access-to-medicine-index-1669982470.pdf

^[12] https://www.stoptb.org/facilitate-access-to-tb-drugs-diagnostics/global-drug-facility-gdf

^[13] https://www.science.org/content/article/major-drug-company-bends-battle-over-access-key-tb-treatment?utm_source=Nature+Briefing%3A+Translational+Research&utm_campaign=89b7cf8e10-briefing-tr-20230726&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_872afe2a9a-89b7cf8e10-47896968

^[14] https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/indias-economic-ambitions-pharmaceutical-industry

^[15] https://www.china-briefing.com/news/china-booming-biopharmaceuticals-market-innovation-investment-opportunities/

^[16] https://www.efpia.eu/media/637143/the-pharmaceutical-industry-in-figures-2022.pdf

^[17] https://aijourn.com/press_release/pharmaceutical-glass-packaging-global-market-report-2023-growth-of-pharmaceutical-industry-in-emerging-economies-drives-sector-researchandmarkets-com/

^[18] https://unctad.org/news/covid-19-heightens-need-pharmaceutical-production-poor-countries

^[19] Saied, AbdulRahman A.a,b,*. Africa is going to develop their own health capabilities for future challenges – Correspondence. International Journal of Surgery 99():p 106585, March 2022. | DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106585

^[20] https://www.who.int/news/item/13-12-2017-world-bank-and-who-half-the-world-lacks-access-to-essential-health-services-100-million-still-pushed-into-extreme-poverty-because-of-health-expenses

^[21] https://www.un.org/ldcportal/content/what-ldc-graduation-will-mean-bangladesh%E2%80%99s-drugs-industry

^[22] https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/255355/9789241512442-eng.pdf

^[23] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6316355/

^[24] https://www.abpi.org.uk/media/news/2022/september/new-survey-shows-collaboration-between-pharmaceutical-industry-and-uk-academia-is-growing/#:~:text=This%20year’s%20survey%20shows%20that,3%2Dfold%20increase%20since%202015.

^[25] https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/dam/az/Sustainability/2023/pdf/Sustainability_Report_2022.pdf

^[26] The small numbers in part might be the result of the pharmaceutical industry being less eager to publish their funded research in this area, though the topic of the search for “access to medicine’ is less ‘confidential’ in comparison to research published on a potentially new pharmaceutical ingredients etc.

^[27] https://www.abpi.org.uk/facts-figures-and-industry-data/industry-and-academia-links-survey-2022/

The post A tale of two pharmas – Global North and Global South appeared first on Digital Science.

Is a fragmented research ecosystem slowing global progress?

Research has the power to change lives, break down barriers and create unity & equity. When the research community solves problems together extraordinary breakthroughs can happen.

But post-pandemic, fragmentation in the research ecosystem remains one of the biggest challenges to the ability of researchers to make a real-world difference. We want to challenge the status quo, highlight the issues, and share positive ways to create better synergy and collaboration, helping to unite a divided research world.  

A new campaign

Today, 25th September 2023, we at Digital Science are launching a new campaign focusing on ‘Fragmentation – A divided research world?’.

We live in an ever more connected yet fragmented world, and the research ecosystem is no exception to this. An important question comes to mind: if components of the research ecosystem are fragmented, does this mean there is fragmentation of research itself? Or, to perhaps put it more simply: is research fragmented, and if so, how?

Our campaign aims to highlight the structural features of fragmentation, by consolidating concepts and by demonstrating a number of analytical approaches through the use of Digital Science tools such as Dimensions.

There is also something intriguing about ‘fragmentation’ that we think is worth exploring in the context of the research ecosystem, and we asked ourselves what fragmentation represents in the world of research. What does it mean in academia?  What does it mean in the corporate sector? 

The processes aligned with fragmentation are difficult to capture. However, we will shed light on these through an understanding of the processes in research, including its contributors, segments and the tools making up the research ecosystem; these will form the basis of our analysis. This campaign is also tied closely into one of Digital Science’s key missions: “Advancing the research ecosystem — together, we make open, collaborative and inclusive research possible“, and we look forward to working with the community throughout this work.

Global divides and siloed knowledge

We start our campaign with a focus on global divides, where we explore some of the geographic aspects of a fragmented world, for example in the Global North and Global South countries where we know there are many disparities.  We also examine global challenges though the lens of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and evaluate global issues including big data for sustainable development.  

The campaign then moves into the domain of siloed knowledge, where we concentrate our attention on areas of research where a lack of integration can result in research findings remaining isolated, limiting their broader applicability across the research ecosystem. Bridging the fragmented nature of research knowledge gaps and promoting cross-disciplinary collaboration is another area where we provide insights. 

Bridging the divides in research

Fragmentation applies to many aspects of the research lifecycle across different contributors from academia, organisations, research funders, governments and businesses. Each are delicately networked, and none are immune to the effects of fragmentation. 

Digital Science was originally conceived of to provide new solutions in the fragmented space with its broad portfolio of companies covering various aspects of the day-to-day research life and its necessities. We understand the fragmented state of research affairs, offering bespoke solutions for individual niches.

This campaign is about analysing and telling stories of the fragmented research world, shedding a light on places where fragmentation occurs (be it, for example, silos of knowledge or global divides) and demonstrating how we can better understand the diversity of research to future-proof—and provide solid foundations for—the global research endeavour.

Featured articles

Rank Outsiders

Can a new ranking reverse fragmentation in higher education?

A tale of two pharmas – Global North and Global South

Perspectives on funding & collaboration, and the localisation of SDGs in the pharmaceutical industry, via a bibliometric evaluation of scientific publications.

Exploring fragmentation: a divided research world.

This article sets out what we mean by fragmentation in the context of research, and how we will explore the topic through a variety of lenses during the campaign.

A multi-dimensional approach to assessing the impact of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

In this short interview, Dr Briony Fane and Dr Juergen Wastl explain the methods behind their work on assessing how global research ties into the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

SDGs: A level playing field?

A new white paper on the UN SDGs shows more can be done to raise up funding and research recognition for the developing world.

Reaching out

If you’d like to find out more about what Digital Science does, or have an idea for and article or a topic we should cover during this campaign, please get in touch.

You can also meet our colleagues from across Digital Science at events & webinars throughout the year, including our recently relaunched Speaker Series and #FuturePub community events.

The post Fragmentation: a divided research world? appeared first on Digital Science.

In this short, informal interview, Dr Briony Fane and Dr Juergen Wastl explain some of the methods behind their work on assessing how global research ties into the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Briony and Juergen have produced a number of key reports, whitepapers and blogs on the impact of research both in the context of SDGs and more widely; a list of their recent works can be found at the end of the article for further reading.

If you’re new to SDGs and want to get a quick idea of how to look at them through a number of different lenses, this is the introduction for you.

Quick links

What are the SDGs and FoRs?

Briony:

The United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs, came into effect in January 2016. The 17 SDGs, are a call for action by all countries – developed and developing – in a global partnership. They recognise that ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand-in-hand with strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality, and spur economic growth – all while tackling climate change and working to preserve our oceans and forests. And importantly, leaving no one behind. Every year, the UN Secretary General presents an annual SDG Progress Report, which is developed in cooperation with the UN System, and based on the global indicator framework, data produced by national statistical systems and information collected at the regional level. 

The Fields of Research (FoR) classification is a component of the 2020 Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification (ANZSRC) system, developed in 2008 and updated in 2020. It categorises all research and development (R&D) activity using a single system. The system is hierarchical, with major fields subdivided into minor fields (FoRs).

SDGs and research impact assessment

Juergen:

My overarching motivation is that I like to unearth interesting details about research, and how it connects to other things, and in particular those details and connections that aren’t necessarily obvious at first glance.

What does this mean in practice? Well, I usually like to start by thinking in two dimensions. For the first dimension we usually look at the different fields of research (FoR), but when we’re doing research assessment, having a simple uni-dimensional view like this can be somewhat limiting. So I like to open up a matrix / heatmap and spread whatever we look at into different corners to see what picture emerges, to see if hotspots emerge. Effectively doing a breadth-first rather than a depth-first search is a 2-dimensional data visualisation technique that represents the magnitude of individual values within a dataset as a colour.

At any point in time there is always a focus on a particular discipline or disciplines — nowadays an obvious one is computer science and AI — but there may be other characteristics to the particular pieces of research in that area. So by adding a second layer, a second dimension, you get a heatmap and can dive deeper into those areas that look interesting when seen through that perspective.

As an example, consider the field of engineering (FoR40). Engineering is very broad, so how do you narrow it down? You could start by choosing a particular branch of engineering, but in doing so you might miss some really interesting things. But if you look at it from the point of view of societal impact with SDGs, then you get a different, more interesting picture. We could, for example, then say: “Oh, we’ve looked at automotive engineering, what will it do in the future? Is e-fuels a thing? Is there already research? When did it start? Did it kick off in 2016 with the launch of the SDGs?” 

So SDGs are, for me, the second axis to open up another dimension in order to do a deep dive into existing research and to highlight it from a new angle. 

Briony:

To add my perspective, I would describe it as follows: using whichever SDGs are relevant, we can look at the associated research in a much more nuanced and detailed fashion. 

To me it is important we look at the sustainability side of research in ways that others might not.

For example, researchers might not look at the Global North – Global South divide — this is the high- and middle-income countries vs the low- and lower-middle-income countries, respectively — from the perspective of, let’s say, climate change, and putting the two together, like we did in our recent piece on Zoonotic diseases. So, whilst we’re not doing a meta analysis, what we do helps to see things from what you might call a meta viewpoint; it helps us to narrow it down in one axis whilst keeping it broad in others.

To me it’s important we look at the sustainability side of things in ways that others might not be.

Dr Briony Fane

Finding the needle in the haystack

Briony:

It’s a way of taking what would otherwise be a really big, intractable topic and giving us a particular angle to look at it from, or a particular filter or lens to look at it through.

It also enables us to showcase how much research has been labelled as being associated with one or more SDGs. The fact that we can identify and tag the research of academics helps showcase how much is being carried out that connects with the sustainability agenda. It’s a viewpoint we have because of the SDG coverage in Dimensions. Other databases don’t attach SDG labels to funding and policy documents, but Dimensions does. It enables this meta viewpoint which is really exciting, and allows us to look at the data in a more nuanced and thorough manner.

Juergen:

Yes, exactly! One of the things that we have done, particularly with our early SDG work, is to look at the potential citation advantage of SDG papers that underpin impact case studies, to determine whether there is an advantage or not. We also looked into how SDGs feature in a UK REF submission, as well as SDGs and impact case studies, using the narrative of a REF impact case study, classifying it externally via our classifier in Dimensions, and then carrying out different analyses. 

So it’s all about opening up new avenues, and looking at research from different angles. 

But we still have to be careful with SDGs. They are not as broadly available as FoRs are — FoRs capture 80% of publications in Dimensions. With SDGs that goes down to about 20-25%, because not all research is published in the context of an SDG. So in a way the SDGs are a good classification system, but not as broad as sometimes people think they might be. From a policy stakeholder point of view, and from a funder point of view it is a hot topic. So we like to look at any analysis that we have on FoRs and, where appropriate, map SDGs onto these.

The benefits for decision makers

Juergen: 

The flexibility of the classification systems in Dimensions and in this case, the SDG classification system, means we could in theory produce an infinite number of reports of course. However, I always try to focus on uncovering results that will be interesting and useful from a decision-making perspective.

In that sense, I’m particularly proud of the ways in which we link SDGs to Dimensions’ dashboards — for example, it took quite a lot of effort to include SDG-type functionality in the P&I dashboard.

It’s also worth pointing out that, unlike in many products and services where the dashboards that are provided only give you a visualisation of something without the ability to drill into the data behind it, with ours you can actually get right to the data. And however you slice and dice or filter your graphs, you can download the data for whatever is in that particular graph that you’re interested in. 

So that’s an important difference, and we’ve had feedback from our development partners that it’s really well received.

We’re providing the dashboards — the visualisations — to help leaders make sense of the data, whilst at the same time enabling them to go further with the underlying data if they want to.

Dr Juergen Wastl

Briony:

I’d echo that, and add that we are also driven and inspired by the conversations we have with people — whether it be colleagues here at Digital Science or the researchers or research administrators in academia and industry. For example, I get approached by colleagues wanting to know more about the topic. Digital Science is full of curious and interesting people, and I love that!

Conversations like this often lead to ideas for an analysis that might be relevant to a particular sector or industry, and if we can align these with our internal priorities, and find a good narrative then that’s even better. But even with this approach, for me the subject matter is as important as the underpinning motivation for the reports. It does not seem advantageous to just put an analysis on our website for the sake of it — there has to be a clear rationale for what we’re doing that ties the work to sustainable development goals or some broader related global challenge — and if that’s not there we will park it and focus on something else.

What lies ahead?

Briony:

Our early work was very UK-centric — related to the REF — but our recent reports, blogs and conference contributions have been much more globally relevant. I see this continuing; we’re now in a rather unique position (given the Dimensions data) to look at the global trends and impact of research. Through our work with the wider research community, we are keen to ensure this impact analysis is as available and accessible as possible, for instance through the dashboards Juergen mentioned.

Juergen:

Yes, as Briony says, in addition to the dashboards our initial SDG reports have already led to a number of notable publications with a global focus – most recently we presented jointly with the Prince Sultan University and the Times Higher Education an SDG analysis on all aspects on research in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in the Developed and Developing World – with a particular focus on the Global South, which we have listed in the following section.

Our key findings

Below is a selection of our recent works covering SDGs, from their appearance in UK academic research assessments, to revealing disparities in efforts to combat the spread of zoonotic diseases amid climate change.

Contextualizing Sustainable Development Research

In the report we ask, if we are to have an impact agenda for research, should it not be one that is informed by the SDGs? And if so, should we not be actively measuring sustainable development as part of research evaluation?

UK Academic Research Contributions to the SDGs Observed Through National Assessment Submissions

Higher education institutions have a uniquely important role to play in delivering solutions to the SDGs.

In search of SDGs in REF Impact Case Studies

This post focuses on the impact of the UK’s research excellence framework (REF) submissions in relation to the UN SDGs.

How is UK funding Allocated to Support Sustainability Research?

Dr Juergen Wastl, Dr Briony Fane and Bo Alroe take a look at the distribution of UKRI grant funding supporting sustainability research.

When economy meets environment: Sustainable development and the case of wastewater pollution in textile manufacturing

A new analysis of research on wastewater pollution and textile manufacturing reveals the impact of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Zooming in on zoonotic diseases

An analysis has revealed disparities in the research effort to combat the growing risk of animal-borne diseases amid climate change.

SDGs: A level playing field?

A new white paper on the UN SDGs shows more can be done to raise up funding and research recognition for the developing world.

Vaccine Hesitancy and the importance of Trust

With trust in research a critical issue, our team takes a detailed look at a key ‘trust marker’ in research publications on vaccine hesitancy.

We are continuing to conduct further analysis, and will update this article with additional links as we publish our new findings. If you’d like to discuss potential collaboration opportunities, or to find out more about our use of Dimensions, we’d love to hear from you — please get in touch

The post A multi-dimensional approach to assessing the impact of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) appeared first on Digital Science.

“Research has integrity when it is carried out in a way that is trustworthy, ethical, and responsible”

UK Committee on Research Integrity

There is growing interest in ensuring the transparency and reproducibility of published scientific research to ensure trust. Although there have been improvements in the last few years in aspects of reproducibility and transparency (eg, data and code availability), further improvements to make research fully reproducible across disciplines. In particular, features that highlight the integrity of research should be made more prominent are still required.¹ In this blog we primarily focus on data availability as a marker of trust, to understand the practice of data sharing and also to see how this is changing over time.

Digital Science’s Dimensions has recently integrated a research integrity dashboard to provide access to data for trust markers in research publications, which are hallmarks of research integrity and open science. These include statements regarding data availability, code availability, competing interests, conflict of interest, and ethics approval, all of which are the markers of trustworthiness and reproducibility.

We take a detailed look at trust markers in a particular research area, vaccine hesitancy, and evaluate the proportion of scientific research publications that report on one of the sources of trust markers. Vaccine hesitancy is defined as “a delay in acceptance, or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services”², and is driven by a number of factors. It is a global phenomenon supported by anti-vaccination groups, fake news, and misinformation spread through social media.³

In 2019 the World Health Organization (WHO) identified vaccine hesitancy as a top global health threat.⁴ According to WHO, it threatens to reverse the historic global efforts to stop vaccine-preventable diseases. Vaccine hesitancy was chosen as a subject with which to explore issues concerning trust because of the nature of the research and its potential to include trust markers.⁵ Markers such as ethics approval, data availability, data availability status eg, supplementary files providing access to data, are likely to be a requirement from a funder and/or journal to ensure the integrity of research including its reproducibility and transparency.

Vaccine hesitancy is closely linked to the clinical sciences as a research area. However, this topic is relevant in a societal context, from a public health perspective and in understanding why there is hesitancy. We might also expect that developing effective health communications and campaigns to correct vaccine misinformation, for example, would link to the social sciences. In this context, we will also look for interdisciplinarity within the vaccine hesitancy research output and compare the coverage of data availability in the social sciences with the clinical sciences, while at the same time assessing any crossover, providing evidence of interdisciplinarity.

Research questions

1. Vaccine hesitancy and its representation in research publications based on research classifications:

2. Do Trust markers play a role in vaccine hesitancy research?

3. Do patterns emerge amongst the data?

Methodology

1. A ‘vaccine hesitancy’ search string was sourced and adapted from a recent paper on vaccine hesitancy and Covid-19.⁶ The search string is included below as an Appendix. 

2. Relevant research publications were used to pull out data from GBQ relating to:

3. The Dimensions Research Integrity dataset was used in conjunction with Google Big Query (GBQ) to access data relating to trust markers in research associated with vaccine hesitancy. These data feed into the Dimensions Research Integrity dashboard that is accessible in Dimensions. 

4. Python programming was used to analyse the data.

Results

To get an initial sense of the data, we first analysed the vaccine hesitancy research publications from Dimensions to ascertain the distribution of subject areas within which the research in this area is aligned. We looked at the top five RCDC areas which provide the bulk of research in this area. We then use these data to unpick the inclusion of data availability statements alongside research outputs.

Table 1 below demonstrates the acceleration in data availability statements in the last five years.

To provide an example of research integrity available in the Dimensions Research Integrity dataset we explored one trust marker – data availability statements – and extracted the data attached to each of the categories of data availability. Figure 3 below displays the percentage for each category over a seven-year time period. Although there is an overall increase in data files made available on request from authors (peacock blue), the same increase has not translated to the inclusion of data made available as a file attached to the research publication. Other categories of data availability (online repository, not publicly available, etc) are small in number and show no pattern.

Figure 4 highlights the transformation in the uptake of data availability statements in published research as categorised by the RCDC classification systems available in Dimensions. We evidence an extremely small proportion of publications acknowledging a data available statement in 2011 (the year Dimensions established its reporting on trust markers) increasing to an 82% uptake in 2022. This rise in data availability is very marked and almost certainly related to the speed with which the research community responded to the Covid-19 pandemic. The arrival of Covid established a repositioning in data availability statements, either acknowledged or physically attached to vaccine hesitancy research publications. 

The word clouds below set out a representation of the most included concepts in research publications associated with vaccine hesitancy. What is noticeable is that the focus for this research is associated with a number of vaccines pre-Covid but shifts to a predominance of Covid vaccine research during the post-Covid years. 

What is also of note is that out of 147 vaccine hesitancy research publications published pre-Covid (2017-2019) 12 (8.1%) include a data availability statement, however, for research publications published post-Covid (2020-2022) we note that out of 725 vaccine hesitancy publications,190 (26%) include data availability statements. Although vaccine research turned around to respond to the Covid pandemic, and likely accounted for the marked increase in data availability, there are still signs of vaccine research generally for infectious diseases (see Figures 5 & 6).

Identifying and understanding the social basis of vaccine hesitancy is important for matters such as future public health policy planning and developing and implementing methods to spread accurate information about the safety and effectiveness of vaccination. This would be  important for reducing or eliminating vaccine hesitancy.

Figure 7 displays four distinct clusters showing the connections within and between each topic area. The four clusters can be further visualised within two distinct clusters: i) two clinical/health research clusters (HPV and, more recently, a Covid related domain) and, ii) two social research clusters (religious exemption and conscientious objection – connected by the concept of ‘law’). The topic network visualisation gives us a sense of the multi- and interdisciplinary nature of vaccine related research.

Conclusions

The scientific research community is aware that the integrity and trustworthiness of their published research is of increasing importance, and research integrity practices are changing rapidly in response to this. Data transparency has played a key role in research conducted to develop a Covid vaccine. This blog demonstrates the considerable increase in the adoption of just one trust marker, data availability statements, as we move towards an era where open and trustworthy science are crucial. The more that data is made publicly available the more transparency, accountability, and democratisation of the research process is enabled.

Dimensions Research Integrity

To learn more about Dimensions Research Integrity and to request a demo or a free quote, click here: https://www.dimensions.ai/request-a-demo-or-quote/ 

Footnotes

1. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2006930

2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25896383/

3. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejgm/13186

4. World Health Organization. Ten Threats to Global Health in 2019; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.

5. Trust markers are explicit statements on a research publication such as funding, data availability, conflict of interest, author contributions, and ethical approval and represent a contract between authors and readers that proper research practices have been observed. Trust markers highlight a level of transparency within a publication and reduce the reputational risks of allowing non-compliance to research integrity policies to go unobserved.

6. https://www.ejgm.co.uk/article/analyzing-research-trends-and-patterns-on-covid-19-vaccine-hesitancy-a-bibliometric-study-from-2021-13186

7. The Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization (RCDC) is a classification scheme used by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) for reporting required by the US Congress. The implementation of this system used automated allocation of RCDC codes to documents in Dimensions based on category definitions defined by machine learning.

Appendix

Vaccine hesitancy search string:

"vaccin* hesitan*" OR "hesitan* to vaccine*" OR "vaccin* refusal" OR "refusal to vaccine*" OR "vaccin* opposition" OR "opposit* to vaccin*" OR "antivacc* group*" OR "antivax" OR antivaxx OR antivaccination OR "object* to vaccin*" OR "resilience to vaccin*" OR "debate against vaccin*" OR "vaccin* *compliance" OR "vaccine* *adherence" OR "resist* to vaccin*" OR "incomplete vaccin*" OR "misinformation about vaccine*" OR "vaccin* misinformation" OR "vaccin* criticism*" OR "delaying vaccin*" OR "anxiety from vaccin*" OR "criticism to vaccin*" OR "barrier* to vaccin*" OR "lack of intent to vaccin*" OR "poor completion of vaccin*" OR "compulsory vaccin*" OR "negative perception about vaccin*" OR "engagement in vaccin*" OR "choice to vaccin*" OR "awareness about vaccin*" OR "knowledge about vaccin*" OR "behavi* toward vaccin*" OR "poor vaccin* uptake" OR "vaccin* uptake rate" OR "doubts about vaccine*" OR "acceptance of vaccine*" OR "acceptability of vaccine*" OR "contravers* about vaccine*" OR "fear from vaccin*" OR "belief in vaccin*" OR "mandatory vaccin*" OR "compulsory vaccin*" OR "willingness to accept vaccin*" OR "willing to accept a vaccin*" OR "parental control of child* vaccin*" OR "willingness to vaccinate" OR "willingness to accept vaccin*" OR ("religious exemption" AND vaccin*) OR "vaccin* accept*" OR "vaccin* resist*" OR "vaccin* conspiracy" OR "vaccin* skepticism" OR "accept* of the vaccin*" OR "intent* to vaccin*" OR "intent* to get vaccin*" OR "attitude* toward* vaccin*"

The post Vaccine Hesitancy and the importance of Trust: An investigation using Digital Science’s Dimensions Research Integrity (DRI) appeared first on Digital Science.

We bring you short, sharp insights into what’s going on across the Digital Science group; both through our in-house experts and in conversation with amazing people from the community. And we’ll keep it brief!

Why TL;DR? Because we’ve all experienced the “Too long; didn’t read” feeling at times, and by explicitly calling this out we’re making sure we provide a short summary at the top of every article here.

Introducing our core team

We have a core team of five (at present!) who will be the primary authors of new content on the site, often working in collaboration with our in-house experts and those in the scientific and research community.

You can think of it like our core team acting as the lightning rods attracting cool, exciting, and sometimes provocative content from across the Digital Science group and our wider community of partners, end users, customers and friends.

And so without further ado, please say hello to: Briony, John, Leslie, Simon and Suze!

Briony Fane

Briony Fane is Director of Researcher Engagement, Data, at Digital Science. She gained a PhD from City, University of London, and has worked both as a funded researcher and a research manager in the university sector. Briony plays a major role in investigating and contextualising data for clients and stakeholders. She identifies and documents her findings, trends and insights through the curation of customised in-depth reports. Briony has extensive knowledge of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and regularly publishes blogs on the subject, exploring and contextualising data from Dimensions.

John Hammersley

John Hammersley has always been fascinated by science, space, exploration and technology. After completing a PhD in Mathematical Physics at Durham University in 2008, he went on to help launch the world’s first driverless taxi system now operating at London’s Heathrow Airport.

John and his co-founder John Lees-Miller then created Overleaf, the hugely popular online collaborative writing platform with over eleven million users worldwide. Building on this success, John is now championing researcher and community engagement at Digital Science.

He was named as one of The Bookseller’s Rising Stars of 2015, is a mentor and alumni of the Bethnal Green Ventures start-up accelerator in London, and in his spare time (when not looking after two little ones!) likes to dance West Coast Swing and build things out of wood!

Leslie McIntosh

Leslie McIntosh is the VP of Research Integrity at Digital Science and dedicates her work to improving research and investigating and reducing mis- and disinformation in science.

As an academic turned entrepreneur, she founded Ripeta in 2017 to improve research quality and integrity. Now part of Digital Science, the Ripeta algorithms lead in detecting trust markers of research manuscripts. She works around the globe with governments, publishers, institutions, and companies to improve research and scientific decision-making. She has given hundreds of talks including to the US-NIH, NASA, and World Congress on Research Integrity, and consulted with the US, Canadian, and European governments.

Simon Porter

Simon Porter is VP of Research Futures at Digital Science. He has forged a career transforming university practices in how data about research is used, both from administrative and eResearch perspectives. As well as making key contributions to research information visualization, he is well known for his advocacy of Research Profiling Systems and their capability to create new opportunities for researchers.

Simon came to Digital Science from the University of Melbourne, where he worked for 15 years in roles spanning the Library, Research Administration, and Information Technology.

Suze Kundu

Suze Kundu (pronouns she/her) is a nanochemist and a science communicator. Suze is Director of Researcher and Community Engagement at Digital Science and a Trustee of the Royal Institution. Prior to her move to DS in 2018, Suze was an academic for six years, teaching at Imperial College London and the University of Surrey, having completed her undergraduate degree and PhD in Chemistry at University College London.

Suze is a presenter on many shows on the Discovery Channel, National Geographic and Curiosity Stream, a science expert on TV and radio, and a science writer for Forbes. Suze is also a public speaker, having performed demo lectures and scientific stand-up comedy at events all over the world, on topics ranging from Cocktail Chemistry to the Science of Superheroes.

Suze collects degrees like Pokémon, the latest being a Masters from Imperial College London that focused on outreach initiatives and their impact on the retention of women engineering graduates within the profession.

Suze is a catmamma and in her spare time loves dance and Disney, moshing and musical theatre.

Introducing our core topics

We are focusing our content around a set of core topics which are critical not just to the research community but to the world as a whole; at Digital Science we believe research is the single most powerful transformational force for the long-term improvement of society, and our vision is a future where a trusted, frictionless, collaborative research ecosystem helps to drives progress for all.

With this vision in mind, our five core topics at launch are: Global Challenges, Research Integrity, The Future of Research, Open Research, and Community Engagement.

These topics will no doubt continue to evolve over time, but that gives us a lot to get started with! Here’s the short summary of what those topics mean to us:

Global Challenges

Most of the world’s technical and medical innovations begin with a scientific paper. It has been said that the faster science moves, the faster the world moves.

But perhaps more importantly, society increasingly looks to science for solutions to today’s most pressing social and environmental challenges. If we’re going to face up to complex health issues, an ageing population, and the digital transformation of the world, we need science and research that is faster, more trustworthy, and more transparent.

With this in mind, we explore how science and research, and its communication, is evolving to meet the needs of our rapidly changing world.

Research Integrity

Research integrity will be a dominant theme in scholarly communications over the next decade. Challenges around ChatGPT, papermills, and fake science will only get thornier and more complex. We expect all stakeholders – research institutions, publishers, journalists, funding agencies, and many others – will need to dedicate more resources to fortify trust in science.

Even faced with these challenges, taking the idea of making research better from infancy to integration is exciting. Past and present, our team has built novel and faster ways to establish trust in research. We are happy to have grown a diverse group that will continue to develop the technical pieces needed to assess trust markers.

The Future of Research

Since its inception, Digital Science has always concerned itself with the future of research tools and infrastructure, with many of our products playing a transformative role in the way research is collaborated on, organised, described and analysed. Within this topic, we explore how Digital Science capabilities can continue to contribute to research future discussions, as well as highlighting interesting developments and initiatives that capture our imagination.

Open Research

At Digital Science, we build tools that help the researchers who will change the world. Information wants to be free and since the dawn of the web, funders have been innovating their policies to ensure that all research will become open.

Digital Science believes that Open Research will help level the playing fields and allow anyone anywhere to contribute to the advancement of knowledge. It also helps with other areas that pre-web academia struggled with. These include, reproducibility, transparency, accessibility and inclusivity.

These posts will cover the why and the how of open research, as it becomes just “research”.

Community Engagement

One of Digital Science’s founding missions was to invest in and nurture small, fledging start-ups to transform scholarly research and communication. Those founding teams now form the heart of Digital Science, and the desire to make, build, and change things for the better is at the core of what we do.

But we’ve never done that in isolation; Digital Science is a success because it’s always worked with the community, and most of us came from the world of research in one form or another!

In these community engagement posts we highlight and showcase some of the brilliant new ideas and start-ups in the wider science, research and tech communities.

What’s up next?

That’s all for this welcome post, but stay tuned for a whole batch of launch content being written as we speak! We’ll also have regular weekly posts from the team, and would love to hear from you if you have an idea for a subject we should cover, or simply if you’d like to say hello! 

You can contact us via the button in the top bar or footer, or via the social media links for our individual authors. 

Ciao for now!  

The post Our new avenue for interesting things appeared first on Digital Science.